EEOC Giving More Thought to Mental Health Conditions

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) this week issued a publication addressing the rights of employees and applicants with mental health conditions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The publication, entitled “Depression, PTSD, & Other Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: Your Legal Rights,” can be found here.

The ADA does not draw a distinction between mental and physical disabilities in terms of an employer’s non-discrimination and accommodation obligations. As with a physical disability, a mental health condition need not necessarily be permanent or severe to be protected under the ADA. A condition that makes activities more difficult, uncomfortable, or time-consuming to perform compared to most people could constitute a disability. If symptoms are intermittent, the focus is how limiting the symptoms are when present. Major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder are provided as examples of some of the conditions that “should easily” qualify as a disability.

An employer need not employ someone with a mental disability who cannot perform his or her job, or who poses a significant risk of substantial harm to him or herself or others. However, the employer cannot rely on assumptions or stereotypes about a mental health condition in making that determination; there must be objective evidence. Similarly, an employer is not required to excuse poor job performance, even if caused by a mental health condition or side effects of medication.

Disclosure of Mental Health ConditionEmployers can grapple with balancing an individual’s privacy regarding a mental health condition, with the employer’s need to assess the employee’s ability to safely perform in the role. The circumstances in which an employer may ask an applicant or employee to provide information about a mental disability are limited to the following scenarios:

If the individual requests a reasonable accommodation.

After making a job offer, but before employment begins, if all persons being hired for the same job category are asked the same questions.

If the employer is engaging in affirmative action for people with disabilities (such as an employer tracking the disability status), however, the individual may choose whether to respond or not.

If objective evidence exists that an employee may be unable to do his or her job or pose a safety risk because of the mental health condition.

If the individual does not want to disclose his or her specific diagnosis, it “may be enough” to provide documentation with a general description of the condition, such as “an anxiety disorder.”

Types of AccommodationThe publication states that employees may be entitled to reasonable accommodation for any mental health condition that would, if left untreated, “substantially limit” the employee’s ability to concentrate, interact with others, communicate, eat, sleep, care for him or herself, regulate thoughts or emotions, or do any other “major life activity.” The employee does not need to stop treatment (as proof of the substantially limiting effect) in order to get an accommodation.

According to the EEOC, if a reasonable accommodation would help the employee do the job, the employer must provide one unless the accommodation involves significant difficulty or expense. If there is more than one suitable accommodation, the employer can choose which one to provide.

The following examples are offered as possible accommodations of a mental disability:

Altered break and work schedules (such as scheduling work around therapy appointments)

Regarding leave, the publication provides that leave may be appropriate if the employee cannot perform all the essential functions of the job to normal standards, and leave will help the employee get to a point where he or she can do so.

For questions about the EEOC’s publication or further information on accommodation individuals with disabilities, please contact any member of Schiff Hardin’s Labor & Employment Group.

Julie is sought after as an advisor and litigator by clients large and small who want effective, real-world counsel and solutions to the personnel issues employers face on a daily basis.

A one-stop shop for a broad range of human resources and employment law needs, Julie is an excellent resource who can demystify a complex web of issues. She is able to focus on a client’s big picture and understands that employment law problems are only a small part of it. That’s why Julie gears her advice toward furthering business operations and management goals in the most efficient way possible, and provides clear direction and counsel in language that makes sense to non-lawyers.

About

The attorneys at Schiff Hardin created this blog as a way to communicate news, developing trends and significant events in labor and employment law. We discuss major court opinions, new legislation and administrative orders and rulings that in-house counsel, human resource professionals and business owners need to know and understand in order to maintain a fair, productive and efficient workplace.

About Our Firm

It is all about relationships. We believe that understanding our clients’ needs and goals is our most important job. We listen. We are trusted advisers and strong advocates for our clients. From its inception, Schiff Hardin’s focus has been on counseling and growing with our clients. We solve tough legal questions and find innovative solutions to difficult legal problems across the country and around the world.